Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
A typographical discrepancy between e-way bill particulars and tax invoices, where goods otherwise correspond with the e-way bill and transport documents, is treated as a human error when it provides no benefit and does not indicate tax avoidance. The notes state that such a minor inadvertent mistake, without intent to deceive the Revenue or financial implications, should attract only the minor penalty under clause 5 of the circular dated 14 September 2018, rather than detention and penalty action under Section 129. The Section 129 penalty order was quashed, with refund of the deposited amount after deduction of the applicable minor penalty.
A typographical discrepancy between e-way bill particulars and tax invoices, where goods otherwise correspond with the e-way bill and transport documents, is treated as a human error when it provides no benefit and does not indicate tax avoidance. The notes state that such a minor inadvertent mistake, without intent to deceive the Revenue or financial implications, should attract only the minor penalty under clause 5 of the circular dated 14 September 2018, rather than detention and penalty action under Section 129. The Section 129 penalty order was quashed, with refund of the deposited amount after deduction of the applicable minor penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.